H.T.I. Corp. v. Lida Manufacturing Co.

6 Citing cases

  1. Teltech, Inc. v. Teltech Comm., Inc.

    115 S.W.3d 441 (Mo. Ct. App. 2003)   Cited 8 times   1 Legal Analyses
    In Teltech, this Court relied heavily on H.T.I, in determining whether the trial court had jurisdiction over a motion to compel arbitration and stay litigation.

    To compel arbitration or stay pending proceedings under the UAA, however, a Missouri court must have jurisdiction over the arbitration matter. See H.T.I. Corp. v. Lida Mfg. Co., 785 S.W.2d 110, 112 (Mo.App.W.D. 1990) (a court must be one of proper jurisdiction to entertain an application to stay arbitration proceedings under the UAA). The "source of the court's jurisdiction to act in arbitration matters is wholly derived from" the UAA. Artrip v. Samons Constr. Co., 54 S.W.3d 169, 172 (Ky.Ct.App. 2001).

  2. Perfectstop v. U.S. Bank

    231 S.W.3d 260 (Mo. Ct. App. 2007)   Cited 4 times

    Appellants assert in their first point that the trial court lacked jurisdiction to grant Respondents' motion to stay the arbitration under the UAA because the arbitration is located in another state. They rely primarily on this Court's decisions in H.T.I. Corp. v. Lida Manufacturing Co., 785 S.W.2d 110 (Mo.App.W.D.1990), and Teltech, Inc. v. Teltech Communications, Inc., 115 S.W.3d 441 (Mo.App.W.D.2003). In H.T.I., the parties entered into a sales contract containing an arbitration agreement calling for arbitration in New York City and governed by New York law. 785 S.W.2d at 111.

  3. Jones v. Paradies

    380 S.W.3d 13 (Mo. Ct. App. 2012)   Cited 9 times
    In Paradies, this Court distinguished between those lawsuits where corporate officer defendants are alleged to have been acting on behalf of the corporation in the course of their wrongdoing, and those lawsuits where corporate officer defendants are alleged to have been “acting for themselves—not for the corporation” in the course of their wrongdoing.

    Gov't eMgmt. Solutions, Inc. v. Am. Arbitration Assoc., Inc., 142 S.W.3d 857 (Mo.App. E.D.2004); H.T.I. Corp. v. Lida Mfg. Co., 785 S.W.2d 110 (Mo.App. W.D.1990); Ascension Health v. Coop. Health Care Ventures, LLC (No. 09SL–CC0908, 2009); PerfectStop Partners, L.P. v. U.S. Bank, 231 S.W.3d 260 (Mo.App. W.D.2007); and Teltech, Inc. v. Teltech Comm., 115 S.W.3d 441 (Mo.App. W.D.2003). The cases were all decided prior to Webb.

  4. Jones v. Paradies

    No. ED97619 (Mo. Ct. App. Jun. 29, 2012)

    Gov't eMgmt. Solutions, Inc. v. Am. Arbitration Assoc., Inc., 142 S.W.3d 857 (Mo. App. E.D. 2004); H.T.I. Corp. v. Lida Mfg. Co., 785 S.W.2d 110 (Mo. App. W.D. 1990); Ascension Health v. Coop. Health Care Ventures, LLC (No. 09SLCC0908, 2009); Perfectstop Partners, L.P. v. U.S. Bank, 231 S.W.3d 260 (Mo. App. W.D. 2007); and Teltech, Inc. v. Teltech Comm., 115 S.W.3d 441 (Mo. App. W.D. 2003). The cases were all decided prior to Webb.

  5. Government e-Management Solutions, Inc. v. American Arbitration Assn

    142 S.W.3d 857 (Mo. Ct. App. 2004)   Cited 12 times

    (Emphasis added.) Jurisdiction under this statute is governed by the place specified for arbitration in the arbitration agreement. If the arbitration agreement provides for arbitration in a state other than Missouri, then Missouri courts have no jurisdiction. Teltech, 115 S.W.3d at 443; H.T.I. Corp. v. Lida Mfg. Co., 785 S.W.2d 110, 112 (Mo.App. 1990). The statute speaks in terms of jurisdiction to enforce an agreement and to enter a judgment or award thereunder.

  6. CPM Productions, Inc. v. Mobb Deep Inc.

    318 Ill. App. 3d 369 (Ill. App. Ct. 2000)   Cited 8 times
    Interpreting section 16 of the Act as a prerequisite to court's jurisdiction to confirm arbitration award and discussing cases from other states

    Our determination comports with the holdings expressed by courts in other jurisdictions. SeeNorthern Indiana Commuter Transportation District v. Chicago Southshore South Bend R.R., 685 N.E.2d 680, 694-95 (Ind. 1997) (noting that counterpart section in Indiana Uniform Act essentially enables the parties to control by contract what court may review an action to enforce an award and effectively provides the basis of jurisdiction); Tru Green Corp. v. Sampson, 802 S.W.2d 951, 953 (Ky. App. 1991) (holding that the plain meaning of the counterpart provision in the Kentucky Uniform Act reveals that the arbitration agreement must provide for the arbitration itself to be in Kentucky in order to confer subject-matter jurisdiction on a Kentucky court); H.T.I. Corp. v. Lida Manufacturing Co., 785 S.W.2d 110, 111-12 (Mo.App. 1990) (holding that counterpart section of Missouri Uniform Act confers jurisdiction on circuit courts of that state to enter judgment on an award, and concluding that circuit court had no jurisdiction to act where the parties agreement provided for arbitration in New York and not Missouri); see also State ex rel. Tri-City Construction Co. v. Marsh, 668 S.W.2d 148, 151 (Mo.App. 1984);Daniels Insurance Agency, Inc. v. Jordan, 99 N.M. 297, 299, 657 P.2d 624, 626 (1982). The arbitration clause in the parties' contract unequivocally provided for arbitration in New York.